Search for: "MAY v. US "
Results 1 - 20
of 119,883
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Jun 2024, 2:55 pm
NRA v. [read post]
26 Jun 2024, 2:01 pm
” The standing requirement may sound technical or procedural, but it’s a critical doctrine for gatekeeping court access. [read post]
26 Jun 2024, 1:54 pm
" Gross v. [read post]
26 Jun 2024, 11:29 am
May 1, 2023) continues to refine the principal established under Corwin v. [read post]
26 Jun 2024, 11:26 am
”[6] In a policy statement from just a few years ago, the FTC agreed that mergers can promote innovation: [I]n dynamic sectors characterized by high R&D costs, firms with broad scale and scope may have unique incentives and capabilities to invest in innovation. [read post]
26 Jun 2024, 11:07 am
FDA v. [read post]
26 Jun 2024, 10:55 am
United States and Idaho v. [read post]
26 Jun 2024, 10:11 am
" As Alito notes, in Department of Commerce v. [read post]
26 Jun 2024, 9:34 am
If you show these things, you may prevail. [read post]
26 Jun 2024, 9:27 am
In Sparf v. [read post]
26 Jun 2024, 7:44 am
(J.L. v. [read post]
26 Jun 2024, 6:16 am
In contrast, the Biden administration has used TPS protection quite aggressively. [read post]
26 Jun 2024, 6:00 am
"In determining what constitutes . . . compensation paid in anticipation of retirement, we must look to the substance of the transaction and not to what the parties may label it" (Matter of Green v Regan, 103 AD2d 878, 878-879 [3d Dept 1984]; see Matter of Smith v DiNapoli, 167 AD3d at 1210; Matter of Chichester v DiNapoli, 108 AD3d 924, 925 [3d Dept 2013]). [read post]
26 Jun 2024, 6:00 am
"In determining what constitutes . . . compensation paid in anticipation of retirement, we must look to the substance of the transaction and not to what the parties may label it" (Matter of Green v Regan, 103 AD2d 878, 878-879 [3d Dept 1984]; see Matter of Smith v DiNapoli, 167 AD3d at 1210; Matter of Chichester v DiNapoli, 108 AD3d 924, 925 [3d Dept 2013]). [read post]
26 Jun 2024, 5:23 am
In State v. [read post]
26 Jun 2024, 3:32 am
One way to get around spending 10 years in the US to overcome 212(a)(9)(B) inadmissibility is if the applicant is eligible for a waiver under INA §212(a)(b)(b)(v), which is based on a showing of extreme hardship to a qualifying relative such as a spouse or parent is a US citizen or lawful permanent resident. [read post]
26 Jun 2024, 3:04 am
Monster Energy Company v. [read post]
26 Jun 2024, 3:00 am
That paraphrasing of his decision in Schenck v. [read post]
25 Jun 2024, 9:05 pm
Despite the Supreme Court ruling in Radovich v. [read post]
25 Jun 2024, 9:01 pm
This post comes to us from Sullivan & Cromwell LLP. [read post]